In the run-up to the 2024 U.S. election, the major social media enterprises, which include Google and Meta (Facebook and Instagram’s parent company), among others, are placing temporary bans on political advertising to reduce the excessive tolerance of political misinformation that has characterized recent electoral campaigns. Social media networks have long been the focal point of criticisms, debate about technology and its effect on democracy, and are hoping that there will not be another situation similar to the chaos of the 2020 electoral period where unfounded allegations of rigged elections were rampant on the sites. Nevertheless, while such measures may appear as some sort of progress; opponents believe they fail to reverse the effects of years of rampant misinformation that did go unregulated. Therefore, this article will focus on the aspects of the ban and its instigators, the limit of social media corporations towards the educational campaigns and the possibility of such ‘education’ altering the current practices surrounding the elections or the public perception of democratic processes and structures. In addition to these considerations, the present article will seek to answer whether these actions are part of a more coordinated attempt within the sector to return to narrative supremacy or whether they are just reactive shelf remedies to the social media regulation issues that have become unbearable in the course of time – it being already too late and the course irreversible.
The Rise of Political Misinformation
The digital age, with its implications of social media, has made disinformation a defining aspect of political communication. In the years that followed the presidential election in the United States in 2016, it turned out that for such media as Facebook and Twitter… and others, it was more than just a means of communication or placing pictures. They were the main means of ??both correct and incorrect? Information dissemination During the 2016 election, there was a great deal of foreign interference and fake news along with tremendous levels of disinformation. The consequences of it still pregnant the public conscience undermining trust in electoral politics, in particular the voting process.
In 2020 the situation got worse. Voter fraud claims became pervasive due to former President Donald Trump and his supporters eventually culminating in an insurrection on the Capitol on January 6th, 2021. The question of social media as a vehicle for such lies has also been a focus of rage among citizens and politicians. This necessitated the major platforms to prioritise dealing with the issue of misinformation ahead of the elections. They started developing new features and regulations aimed at restrictions of the false information propagation, especially on political advertisement.
Meta’s Political Ad Ban: A Short-Term Solution?
Meta’s choice to restrict political ads on Facebook and Instagram is considered to be a key development in the war on disinformation that the company is waging. The firm went as far as announcing it will disallow new political advertisements before and after the election, which is bound to be a simmering hot election in the USA. In the first place, the restrictions were to come into force some weeks after the elections and the results announced, but Meta developed it further to bring it into put before, during and after counting of votes of the last round.
By far the most important premise of Meta’s restriction of advertisement is to safeguard the candidates and their supporters from using paid advertisement space to propagate misinformation or altering the public opinion in the dangerous time period of trying to manipulating the post-elections period which usually begins when the votes are still being counted. Such a situation is particularly crucial in a scenario where a country holds an election and there are no clear results after the voting day, like it was in the year 2020. At such times, it is very easy for false information to spread, create disarray, and incite violence.
The fact that Meta will stop new political ads probably indicates that the position of the company regarding the political ads has changed. Previously, Facebook sold political advertisements without many restrictions based on the idea that their sites were a forum for all views. However, due to the criticism that followed the misuse of the site for information propagation during the elections of 2016 and 2020, Meta has gradually adopted more conservative measures. In 2020, for example, the corporation banned any political advertising, after closure of the voting which was meant, for, among other reasons, to avoid politicians announcing victory before it was declared official.
Although these actions have been regarded as a strategy to reduce the prevalence of false information, the success of these measures is still questionable. The prohibition on political advertising is imposed for a limited duration only and unapproved material may be organically posted by other users on the platforms. Moreover
Google’s Response: A Similar Approach
YouTube owner Google known for digital advertising for years has also made the same announcement. Political ads will be suspended until the polls are closed on Election Day. Just like Meta, Google intends to do this in order to aviod possibilities of such ads sparing any effect when the election results are still not settled.
This particular aspect of this development is important for Google because Many political videos are uploaded on YouTube and consume the viewer from caampaign video to even cooking videos which in turn promote distorted information about the election. YouTube has already socialized several measures like fact checking content and monitoring moderation tank but this writter thinks two other reasons are intertwined with infowar and American politics or even including country the American politics. Seventh why after such checks Youtube still teamed with false extremism and baseless theories prior the caliphate of 2020?
Contrary to the articles which suggests a moral ‘demand’ for a halt to political motion picture all activity, a number of issues are brought to the fore by Google’s announcement of a pause in political advertising. How realistic and how far-reaching this ban can be effective to stop people turning to YouTube and Google in their hundreds of millions for news and information is dbated. And moreover the history is that the company has been accused of not making enough steps to control its own systems. But it is taking action in the right direction as far as the political advertisement is concerned, whether this ban will drop the rate at which false information is being peddled some flags before and after the election remains to be seen.
There are also concerns that the temporary suspension of political advertisements by Google would hardly help in solving the root problem of misinformation prevalent on its networks. Since fake news and false information typically spread organically via social media posts, search pages and even YouTube videos, simply prohibiting ethnic or issue based advertising may not reverse the adverse effects of years of irresponsible management of online content.
TikTok’s Absence from the Debate
In contrast to Google and Meta which have imposed restrictions on political advertising, most other platforms have adopted a more permanent solution. Most notably, perhaps, in this discourse on political advertising on digital platforms is TikTok which has disallowed political content since 2019. The political advertisement ban by TikTok has been criticized for being an overreaction to the perhaps rightful fear that the… political advertisement will affect its primary market… the youth demographic of the application.
Emphasizing the absence of TikTok in political advertisements might limit certain types of misinformation, however, it brings up an interesting debate on the political influence of the platform. It continues to serve millions of people that share violent’e’ memes’ political ones along with deliberate fabrications and calls to action that are outlawed in the context of paid political campaigning. The organic dissemination of political advertising has been increasingly criticized, especially in conjunction with issues around voter suppression and conspiracy theories, for contributing to the promotion of false information.
X (Formerly Twitter): A Different Approach
With regard to leadership, Elon Musk heading X (formerly Twitter) has been different compared to Meta and Google. Upon assuming control of the website in 2022, Musk introduced a number of edits of content moderation – that even included the prohibition of political advertising. By the year 2023, X has already permitted the running of political advertisement campaigns or political ads with little limitations. This change of policy has caused a backlash among critics, who point out that the absence of content moderation standards as projected by Musk would again create room for false political advertising that may mess with the elections.
The Incorporation of Political Ads X’s decision is rationalized by Hypertrophic Restoration Musks approach towards protection of speech in a sustained manner that he has issued ever since acquiring X. Claims have been made by Musk that X will not so much allow these studies but will engaged in political advertising. There is a cause for concern, however, as people might abuse the system in order to use it for politics. The 2024 X elections will be of significant interest, especially with its history of conspiracy theories and disinformation.
Experts Weigh In: Too Late for Effective Change?
Many see the recently instituted short-term prohibitions against political advertisement placements as the necessary measures to curb electoral interferences and dishonesty, however many people point out that for them it may be already too late. More people who think that social media sites, due to their inactivity for a while now, have missed their window to completely control the disinformation ‘demon’ that threatens the election processes.
As experts argue, a large part of the damage is already and is likely to remain done. The very dissemination of lies, especially those, propagated about phenomena like ‘voter fraud’, ‘sanity of elections’, ‘political violence’ etc, has already gone a long way in destroying faith in the conduct of elections. Surveys indicate that substantial portions of the society – especially in the context of the 2020 news cycle – do not trust the very fact of elections being held even in the absence of demonstrable fraud. These notions, which have been amplified to high levels via social media, have polarized the political conversation.
Furthermore, such contradictory and prophylactic approaches to the management of user-generated content have incurred high costs as they have emboldened the circulation of falsehoods in the society for several years. Even though, Meta, Google and other companies have attempted to put in place measures to curb the spread of false information and disinformation, it is possible that these measures are still insufficient to resolve the challenge that has persisted for years. In addition to that, platforms such as YouTube and X still contain massive volumes of advertising that gives voice to false narratives, conspiracy mongering, or extremism – types of advertising that are often more engaging and spread faster than factual content.
The Road Ahead: Can Social Media Platforms Regain Trust?
In the end, the big concern is if these platforms can restore the trust of the users, the election administrators and the politicians. Political advertisement bans for example can in some way serve a purpose but it is very far from the solution. Scholars appreciate that social media should not be used for the propagation of falsehoods, and therefore, issues of content management, transparency and social media regulation will have to change in the different spheres in the society, while at the same time ensuring that there is no compromise on the quality of service done within those spheres.
For now, the 2024 election period will be crucial in ascertaining these temporary changes suffices or not. It may seem debatable that these ad bans or restrictions could curb the spread of false narratives, but it is obvious that this is not the last of the problems for social media services in regard to misinformation. When that time comes, it will not be sufficient for the relevant platforms to demonstrate only the ability to counteract misinformation. They will also be required to display the ability to permanently protect democracy through more active and constructive strategies.
Conclusion
It is timely that platforms such as Meta, Google and others have decided to impose a temporary restriction on political advertisements. Even though these measures may assist in controlling a better percentage of electoral disinformation, they will not be sufficient to negate the many years of damage that has come from disinformation propagated for an extended period on the internet. The more serious problem has to do with the implementing deep-seated changes that can take quite some time to help in regaining confidence in these social media and even more so, preventing such platforms from being weaponized to sabotage democracy.
In noting the countdown to the year 2024 election the social media can no longer be regarded as mere participants in the information environment. If they will be able to deal with the matter of protecting democracy and the confidence of citizens in the conduction of elections is yet to be seen.
